Saturday, November 29, 2003

Trans4mational analysis Jenny takes some potshots at STC's transformation initiative with some ideas of her own. And we are, of course, glad to hear her ideas. At which point I'll also note that the transformation team has a hired-gun doing some of the legwork, interviewing various team members and stakeholder representatives, mapping out a description of where we are and helping us work out where we want to go. And everything, absolutely everything, is being examined, including the structure of other organizations, such as ACM. And yes, it's true, I'm one of those stakeholder representatives, duly interviewed and participating, as described in this Trans4mation blog entry. So if you're a member of the Silicon Valley chapter--or any other, for that matter, and have something to contribute, you're welcome to contact me. Just don't expect instant gratification--I'll listen, but I can't promise your ideas will be implemented. 6:15:05 PM    Questions? Comments? Flames? []

Structure not hierarchical? Gordon points to a Tina Hedlund piece in Getting started with structured writing, with some cogent commentary. I have thought for some time that I might have an easier time at structured writing than some others, since I know folks who are aghast at the idea of writing without their accustomed hierarchy: "Why can't I have my Heading 5s?!!??" My natural style of thinking is more flat than hierarchical, more hyperlinked and less linear. Now, if I really had the chance to do structured writing I might find out if my guesses are true. 6:05:54 PM    Questions? Comments? Flames? []

© Copyright 2002-2005 Fred Sampson. Last update: 5/21/05; 10:19:59 PM.